To regain widespread support for the animal rights movement by rethinking its approach.

2005.08.28

This article, written by a conservative animal rights activist (two labels that are not always mutually exclusive), highlights a simple but powerful truth: Laws exist to prevent cruelty to animals -- and, as a whole, society believes that animal abuse is a form of evil. Why, then, do people turn their backs on cruelty towards livestock and animals used for fur? Why is"cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference?"

Scientists believe pigs are probably more intelligent than dogs, and certainly have as much capacity for pain and pleasure. But I suppose the answer is obvious...we have accepted dogs into the human "club" and pigs are still on the outside. We know how to speak "dog-ese," to read their gestures, sounds, and body language. But, as a race, we are not as familiar with other animals -- to us, pigs are amusing machines, quirky robots or cartoon characters that are seen but do not see.

In all, I think that Scully's low-key style may be what the animal rights movement needs right now. Appeals to our sense of logic and justice, in a direct, non-confrontational manner. moderate reform, humane farming...when these ideas have gained acceptance -- THEN we can look into eradicating fur and meat.

2005.08.27

If you place “animal rights” into a blog search engine, you
will find as just as much ridicule for the cause as activism.

Why this recent disdain?

Of course the extreme tactics of some animal rights’ activists don’t help.

Or maybe it's the fear of disrupting our economy (a lot of which is fueled by industries that hurt animals).

It could be that people just don’t connect emotionally to animals

Leave it to me to plumb the unconscious, but I think
something more insidious is going on.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say it all started
after (the) September 11th.

Americans felt strangely weak and vulnerable, and naturally
looked for ways to assert their power and rights. The easiest targets – animals.

This may sound like a stretch, but think of it this way:
When the authority of a person in power is undermined, he will rule in a
particularly harsh manner. For example, the older brother, just punished by his
parents, in turn torments his little sister.

But how were we to reaffirm our power after 9/11 exposed our
vulnerability?

Well, the American
system has overcome racism and sexism (for the most part), so that’s out of the
question. And now even children have rights. These days, the only borderline
subjects are animals. They easily fall victim to national moods, becoming the
objects of exploitation and violence when we do not feel secure in our positions.

This collective renewal of animal exploitation is not
conscious… but neither is the motivation for buying fur, exclaiming pride at
eating veal, and making fun of people who think other creatures are important
too. Since our instincts and laws do not force us to protect animals, we can
assert our might over the natural world by churning its creatures through our
ruthless industrial machine.

This may explain why some people argue for a “right” to wear
fur. What does this stylistic choice reveal? Well, fur costs a lot of money,
and money is power. But the decision to wear fur expresses something further.
The garment says (of the wearer): “I have the power to put a being to death so
that I may enjoy one of its byproducts.” This is the declaration of absolute
power – killing for luxury, not necessity, and not having to answer for this
act. For evidence, just research the most brutal of dictatorial regimes.

When someone claims that he has the right to use animals
according to his whim, he reveals the following unconscious beliefs:

That he is still, without realizing it, a vestige of the “Copernican” model of the universe. That is, that the sun revolves around the earth -- that humans are the center of the universe – and thus, the universe (and its inhabitants) exists in order to be used by us.

That he feels insecure, vulnerable, or weak – and therefore asserts power wherever he can.

How can we protect animals from human whims produced by
societal and economic flux? How can we take this issue beyond what is “trendy,”
convenient, or fits the current mood?

Legislative changes are needed to protect the vulnerable from the whims of the powerful…historically
exploited races, children, the disabled, the mentally ill all have rights…why not add animals
to that list?

2005.08.15

Among other interesting facts in this article, apparently fur farming is illegal in England. However, this means that British designers import their fur from places that do not regulate the treatment of animals on their farms.

I read somewhere else that it is illegal in England to test cosmetics products on animals.

Can you see the United States passing this type of reform? Why or why not? I'd be really interested in your ideas and opinions.

I love animals. I mean, really really love them. To illustrate, I can't visit www.peta.org anymore because the bastards make me cry every time.

But, it's easy to distance this love -- which is immediate, visceral, and directed to the animals in my everyday life -- from the things I eat, buy, and wear. Animal products are neatly packaged and given euphemistic names like "leather" (instead of cow-skin) and veal (instead of -- what was the South Park name? -- "tortured baby cows").

So I go about my life, drinking milk, eating eggs, even wearing leather and make-up that was tested on animals, and god knows what else. My animal-love and fashion-love revolve in separate mental orbits, and when I'm shopping, the adorable leather bag is on my mind, not the baby moo-cow crying for its mommy who just boarded the bus with a one-way ticket.

So what's a girl accustomed to a certain lifestyle (and not a fan of hemp, pleather, soy-products, or botanical make-up) to do?

Some will surely suggest: "How about you just stop being such a superficial bitch?"

Ok, ok, point taken.

But will me becoming a minimalist really address the problem? I don't think people will stop wanting to be beautiful, fashionable, and have fun gadgets for quite awhile...But is there something special about these products that makes it necessary for animals to suffer when they're being made?Well....No. So why isn't there a place for people like me to shop, eat, or hang out? Well....for some unknown reason, animal-friendly became associated with "earthy minimalist." Vendors seem to assume that people who love animals want to be healthy, all-natural, and unconcerned with superficial things like style.

My solution: Let's dispel the myth that animal-lovers want to give up the things of this world. Give us an easy way to shop, eat, and live without giving up our style or feeling like hypocrites.